Why I'm an Atheist

[quadz]

Regarding the planet's movement, who says the supernatural isn't involved? By defintion god would be invovled in everything. To god be the glory?

Yes, just like the whole universe could have been created 17 seconds ago, in situ, and we'd have no way of knowing.

God being involved has nothing to do with situ and creation taking place 17 seconds ago

There's no possible way you could know that.

They're both examples of god being "involved" that produce apparently no measurable deviation from the existing laws of nature.  (Wherever those laws originated.)

although it is getting easier and easier to form arguments that all the glory be to god.

How could it possibly be any easier?  That's the one argument that requires (a) no education, and (b) no reasoning ability to make.

Anyway, god told me personally she hates all this "glory" shit.

[fdrjk]

Anyway, god told me personally she hates all this "glory" shit.

 

[reaper]

Regarding the planet's movement, who says the supernatural isn't involved? By defintion god would be invovled in everything. To god be the glory?

Yes, just like the whole universe could have been created 17 seconds ago, in situ, and we'd have no way of knowing.

God being involved has nothing to do with situ and creation taking place 17 seconds ago

..

There's no possible way you could know that.

They're both examples of god being "involved" that produce apparently no measurable deviation from the existing laws of nature.  (Wherever those laws originated.)

I know situ didn't create the universe 17 seconds ago, just like you should know (or at least be 99.9999 percent sure) an ultra complicated creator didn't always exist, given all the evidence against god and for the universe existing on its known, not to mention your conclusions that  logic and knowledge do matter enough to make these judgements.

although it is getting easier and easier to form arguments that all the glory be to god.

How could it possibly be any easier?  That's the one argument that requires (a) no education, and (b) no reasoning ability to make.

Anyway, god told me personally she hates all this "glory" shit.

If you had a universe/life/work/love/play/sport/feelings/elements/everything_we_know be so harmonious and constantly develop, the natural thought would be things just don't form on their own.  As all these things progress, with no explanation to be so perfect, but a god, yes the arguments gets easier.  It's simply not enough that we understand a bit about the universe, especially since it leaves a perfect beginning for god.  When you have an earth that is fucked up, or any of these components are fucked up, it would be a lot harder to form these arguments, and yes it seems plausible you could still be there to ask the question and not have things be perfect.

Random energy fluctuations producing things in a void, exploding into just what we would want from an external perspective

 

Welcome to:

[Kami]

stuff

did you know that people have actually won the lottery?

[Whirlingdervish]

 

[reaper]

did you know that people have actually won the lottery?

More money more problems??

not that I agree with that

 

[quadz]

I know situ didn't create the universe 17 seconds ago, just like you should know (or at least be 99.9999 percent sure) an ultra complicated creator didn't always exist, given all the evidence against god and for the universe existing on its known, not to mention your conclusions that  logic and knowledge do matter enough to make these judgements.

By created "in situ" I meant, designed with everything already "in place"--such as in a Divine VMware--and then god hit the "play" button 17 seconds ago.  (Yes, including photons already in-transit.)

If we're going to postulate a god who can create universes, we might as well assume this god could have a Divine VMware technology on which to run the Universal Simulation, if it wanted to.

If you had a universe/life/work/love/play/sport/feelings/elements/everything_we_know be so harmonious and constantly develop, the natural thought would be things just don't form on their own.  As all these things progress, with no explanation to be so perfect, but a god, yes the arguments gets easier.  It's simply not enough that we understand a bit about the universe, especially since it leaves a perfect beginning for god.  When you have an earth that is fucked up, or any of these components are fucked up, it would be a lot harder to form these arguments, and yes it seems plausible you could still be there to ask the question and not have things be perfect.

I feel safe in asserting: There's no sane definition of 'perfect' that matches your usage.

From what I gather from previous discussions, your idea of 'perfect' is that it's OK for millions of people in the world to be suffering, because it allows everyone else (i.e. you) to be able to conceive of and better appreciate a full range of experience between elation and abject misery.

I find your repeated claims that the world/universe is "perfect" to be embarrassingly sick, depraved, profoundly obtuse, and--if nothing else--a shining example of the sort of un-perfection one would expect to encounter in the brains of an imperfectly evolved species.

[reaper]

If we're going to postulate a god who can create universes, we might as well assume this god could have a Divine VMware technology on which to run the Universal Simulation, if it wanted to.

You're the one postulating the existence of god, but that's already a self-evident truth.  I don't think you would find god if he came through your chimney dressed as santa-claus, but surely others will.  It's not my plan though, but you can keep believing in accidents.

From what I gather from previous discussions, your idea of 'perfect' is that it's OK for millions of people in the world to be suffering, because it allows everyone else (i.e. you) to be able to conceive of and better appreciate a full range of experience between elation and abject misery.

It's like in the matrix, what you think is perfect has no harmony, and is not conceivable.  What makes you think god wants a simulation?  And if you want to make analogies based on computers, why not look at how if a virus was "alive" it'd be pointless, and that you don't see computers forming themselves and things _happen_ to be just the way they want?

On another note, I'm not a religious person, basically I consider things unknown at this point.  My personal assesment is that it's 50/50 a god exists.  I don't consider the knowledge that shows no need for a god to be very important, or religion being proved wrong very important, especially given the evidence in favor of god.

[Tubby]

From what I gather from previous discussions, your idea of 'perfect' is that it's OK for millions of people in the world to be suffering, because it allows everyone else (i.e. you) to be able to conceive of and better appreciate a full range of experience between elation and abject misery.

I find your repeated claims that the world/universe is "perfect" to be embarrassingly sick, depraved, profoundly obtuse, and--if nothing else--a shining example of the sort of un-perfection one would expect to encounter in the brains of an imperfectly evolved species.

Wheeee.... Go Quadz!

But you should have added; "the brains of an an imperfectly evolved species which thinks it knows more than it really does because that's the limit of what their imperfect brains can comprehend." 

Vis; I'm sure monkeys consider for an absolute fact that bananas evolved for no other reason than their consumption...

[Whirlingdervish]

nevermind this situ fellow! god is like, THE answer.

 

[|iR|Focalor]

blah blah blah

Exactly. When the "debate" isn't going your way, change the subject or ignore the question.

Pinhead.

[Tubby]

nevermind this situ fellow! god is like, THE answer.

Which god, Reaper? What about people who worship Satan as their god? And what gives you the right to say that your beliefs (whatever they may be) are any 'better' than theirs?

[Tubby]

blah blah blah

Exactly. When the "debate" isn't going your way, change the subject or ignore the question.

Pinhead.

I think the debate is going 'my' way quite nicely actually, Foc.

You can always tell you're winning an argument when the other guy has to resort to verbal abuse and personal insults to make his point.

Btw, that latest insult - you calling me a 'pinhead' - is actually an insult to those born with a congenital disability known as microcephaly - people who were called 'pinheads' as a derogatory term due to the small size of their heads. This is one of many such neurological conditions that the loving, merciful god has (for some reason) inflicted on his children. An extreme example of this condition is anencephaly. Go look anencephaly up on Google, then get back to me and tell me why your loving, merciful god would want to do that to a baby.

[|iR|Focalor]

blah blah blah

Exactly. When the "debate" isn't going your way, change the subject or ignore the question.

Pinhead.

I think the debate is going 'my' way quite nicely actually, Foc.

You can always tell you're winning an argument when the other guy has to resort to verbal abuse and personal insults to make his point.

Btw, that latest insult - you calling me a 'pinhead' - is actually an insult to those born with a congenital disability known as microcephaly - people who were called 'pinheads' as a derogatory term due to the small size of their heads. This is one of many such neurological conditions that the loving, merciful god has (for some reason) inflicted on his children. An extreme example of this condition is anencephaly. Go look anencephaly up on Google, then get back to me and tell me why your loving, merciful god would want to do that to a baby.

I'm a fucking Satanist, you retard. My god is not loving to those who do not deserve love. My god is not merciful to those who do not deserve mercy. Not that it matters, which is precisely why I didn't say shit to you about it until now. Go ahead and spout assumptions as if you have one single clue what the hell it means to be me. Just one more opportunity for you to...

change the subject or ignore the question.

[quadz]

stream of consciousness string of non-sequitirs, unsupported inferences, and straw-men

I'd be nice if you'd take the steps to lay out a cogent argument.

I don't think you would find god if he came through your chimney dressed as santa-claus, but surely others will. ... My personal assesment is that it's 50/50 a god exists.

So you haven't found god either.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5T3ULQXCLk


quadz